Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the teachings of Tanaka are limited to conductive ceramics rather than insulating ceramics (p. 5). However, the cited paragraph refers to conductive filler for the cathode. Tanaka teaches the use of γ-alumina particles (Tanaka Abstract), which are insulating ceramic particles.
Applicant contends that the electrodes of Huh do not include an active material layer between the current collector and ceramic coating layer (p. 6). However, as seen in Fig. 7 of Huh, the narrowed end of the active material layer is between the current collector and the narrowed end of the ceramic coating (circled in red below).
PNG
media_image1.png
994
1858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh et al. (US 2014/0255778 A1) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2012/0058375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huh discloses an electrode assembly comprising a first electrode plate (anode 200) comprising a first current collector (60) comprising a body portion coated with a first active material layer (70) and a tab extending in a first direction (to the right) from the body portion; a second electrode plate (cathode 100) comprising a second current collector (30) comprising a body portion coated with a second active material layer (10) and a tab (20) extending in the first direction from the body portion; and an insulating coating (40) on the end of the second active material layer (Huh Fig. 7 and [0050]) such that there is a non-zero thickness of the active material layer between the coating layer and the current collector (circled in red below).
PNG
media_image1.png
994
1858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huh teaches that the insulating coating should be 10-90% of the length of the tab (Huh Claim 10), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range of Huh, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Huh does not teach that the insulating coating is ceramic. Tanaka teaches that using a ceramic insulating layer for such a coating reduces the risk of delamination during manufacturing (Tanaka [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the ceramic coating of Tanaka in the battery of Huh in order to reduce risk of delamination.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches that the insulating layer should be 3 to 15 µm thick (Tanaka [0068]), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, the second active material layer comprises a substrate region (the main body of the active material layer) and a thinned region (inclined portion) with a decreased thickness provided with the coating (Huh Fig. 7 and [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, the coating layer has a uniform height that is at most the height of the main body of the active material layer (Huh Figs. 4-7), so at every point on the inclined portion, the total thickness of the inclined portion plus the coating layer is less than the thickness of the substrate layer. The difference is therefore negative, which is less than 3 µm.
Regarding claim 5, the coating thickness on the inclined region goes from 0 to T while the thickness of the inclined region goes from T to 0 (Huh Figs. 4-7), and y/x is between 0.1 and 0.9 (Huh Claim 10), so a point in the coated portion of the inclined region can be selected to satisfy any value within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, the thinned region is close to the tab (Huh Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, the first and second tabs are on the same side (Huh. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Huh does not teach that the first and second tabs are on two sides of the electrode assembly. Tanaka teaches that wound electrodes may be made such that the first and second tabs are on opposite ends of the electrode assembly (Tanaka Figs. 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional configuration, including with tabs on opposite ends of the electrode assembly, for the battery of modified Huh.
Regarding claim 9, modified Huh does not teach that the first active material layer is also coated with a ceramic coating. Tanaka teaches that either or both of the positive or negative electrode may be provided with the coating to prevent short circuits (Tanaka Claim 1 and [0003]-[0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the coating on either or both electrodes as necessary to prevent short circuits.
Regarding claim 10, Huh does not teach that the thinned portion and insulating coating are provided near the opposite tab. Huh teaches that short circuits may occur at both ends (Huh Fig. 1), and Tanaka teaches that the coatings may be provided at both ends to prevent short circuits (Tanaka Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the inclined portion and coating at both ends of the electrode of Huh to prevent short circuits at both ends.
Regarding claim 11, the ceramic coating includes a ceramic material (gamma alumina) and a binder (Tanaka [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Huh does not teach that the first active material layer is the positive electrode. Tanaka teaches that either or both of the positive or negative electrode may be provided with the coating to prevent short circuits (Tanaka Claim 1 and [0003]-[0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the coating on either or both electrodes as necessary to prevent short circuits.
Regarding claim 13, the electrode assembly is included in a battery (Huh [0001]).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh in view of Tanaka as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Iwasaki et al. (US 2018/0083269 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Huh does not teach that the battery is included in a battery module. Iwasaki teaches that such batteries are preferably assembled in a battery module for use in electric vehicles (Iwasaki [0236] and [0243]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to arrange the batteries of Huh into a battery module for use in an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Iwasaki teaches that such battery modules are preferably assembled in a battery pack for use in electric vehicles (Iwasaki [0236] and [0243]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to arrange the batteries of Huh into a battery module for use in an electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, the battery pack is a power source for an electric vehicle (Iwasaki [0243]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights